             CRISIS/HOSTAGE NEGOTIATION TEAM PROFILE
 
                               By

                   Mitchell R. Hammer, Ph.D., 
                           Professor
                     American University
                       Washington, D.C.

                            and

                  Clinton R. Van Zandt, M.P.A.,  
                        Special Agent
                         FBI Academy

                            and

                    RANDALL G. ROGAN, Ph.D. 
                          Professor
                    Wake Forest University
                 Winston-Salem, North Carolina


    Over 600 crisis/hostage negotiators and members of special 
operation teams gathered in February 1992 to share ideas and 
exchange information and experiences. During this seminar, 
conducted jointly by the Baltimore County, Maryland, Police 
Department and the FBI, attendees from Federal, State, and local 
law enforcement agencies throughout the United States reviewed 
five hostage incidents. Each presentation provided insights into 
the complex and dynamic nature of the negotiation process under 
highly stressful situations. 

    Unfortunately, little comprehensive data exist concerning
crisis negotiation activities in the United States. Therefore, 
in an effort to develop such critical data, the authors requested
that hostage negotiation unit team leaders attending the February 
seminar complete a crisis negotiation survey (CNS). The survey 
was designed to identify the needs of crisis negotiation teams. 
In addition, the authors hoped to gather demographic information 
about the negotiation teams. Only team leaders completed the 
survey to preclude duplicate responses. 

THE SURVEY 

    The CNS consisted of 44 questions focusing on specific issues 
that affect crisis negotiation teams. These issues included 
demographics, selection and training, incident responses, use of 
mental health professionals, information and training needs, and 
the feasibility of establishing a national clearinghouse for 
crisis negotiation. The survey was initially developed based on 
input from FBI hostage negotiators. Its intent was to obtain 
responses from team leaders regarding hostage negotiation needs. 
Then, in order to ensure that it was appropriate for the purpose 
of this study, FBI hostage negotiators and outside experts on 
surveys reviewed the items, sequencing, and overall wording of 
the survey. 

    One hundred hostage negotiation team leaders completed the 
survey. Therefore, the percentages listed equal the actual number 
of respondents (e.g., 76 percent equals 76 out of 100 responses). 

SURVEY RESULTS 

Team Demographics 

    The survey responses revealed that few females served on 
negotiation teams. Seventy-six percent of those responding 
indicated that women comprised between 0-20% of their hostage 
negotiation teams. 
 
    The ethnic composition of negotiation teams was primarily 
white. Seventy-one percent of the respondents indicated that 
their negotiation teams consisted of 81-100% Caucasian members.

    Further, respondents indicated that most of the negotiation 
team members' duties were either in investigation or patrol, 
with some in administration. Specifically, 51% of the respondents
stated that more than 40% of their teams had primarily invest-
igative responsibilities, while 47% stated that 40% or more of 
their team members served primarily in patrol. Overall, 72% re-
sponded that fewer than 20% of their team members were actively 
involved in administrative duties. 

Negotiation Team Selection and Training 

    Fewer than half (45%) of the teams had any written negotiator 
selection policy. In addition, once selected, team members 
received a fairly limited amount of initial training in hostage 
negotiations. Seventy-four percent of the re-spondents stated 
that their teams received 10 days or less. Many team leaders 
(44%) said initial negotiator training lasted 5 days or less. 
Only 1% of the respondents indicated that their team members 
received 21 or more days of initial negotiator training. 

    According to the survey results, the FBI provided 40% of the 
initial training. However, initial negotiator training was also 
provided either by the respondents' own departments (17%) or 
through outside contractors (15%). 

    Departments spent even less time on continuing or follow-up 
training each year. The majority of teams (61%) recorded, on the 
average, 5 days or less inservice training each year. Overall, 
82% of all teams received 10 days or less of this type of 
training. Only a few teams (6%) devoted 15-20 days to followup 
training annually, while no team received more than 20 days of 
continuing hostage negotiation team training. Most continuing 
training was undertaken either in-house (44%) or was provided by 
the FBI (24%). 

    Overall, little or no joint training was undertaken with 
SWAT teams. Forty-four percent of the negotiation teams trained 
with their SWAT teams 3 days or less, and 39% engaged in no joint 
training. 

Negotiation Team Incident Responses 

    Generally, most negotiation teams responded to a relatively 
small number of crisis negotiation situations during 1991. During 
that year, 72% of the teams responded to 10 or fewer incidents, 
while 20% of the teams responded to 11-20 incidents. 

    When asked to indicate the number of situations the teams     
actually negotiated, the majority (83%) of teams negotiated 10 or 
fewer crisis events and 13% negotiated between 11-20 situations. 
In terms of the type of crisis situation in which teams needed to 
negotiate with a perpetrator, the most common was barricade 
incidents, followed by domestic situations, suicides, 
hostage-takings, criminal/high-risk arrest situations, and 
kidnapings. 

Use of Mental Health Professionals 

    Only about one-half of the teams (56%) indicated that they 
used mental health professionals as consultants. Team leaders 
indicated post-incident counseling as the most predominant reason 
for using mental health consultants (58% of the teams that use 
mental health professionals use them in this capacity). 

    In a significant number of agencies, mental health profes-
sionals also act as on-scene advisors to negotiation teams (40%) 
and become involved in the training (34%) and selection of team 
members (32%). However, only 6% of the team leaders stated that 
they use mental health professionals as primary negotiators. 

Information and Training Needs

    In order to determine the most critical information and train-
ing needs of the negotiation teams, the respondents were asked to 
rate 11 topics on a five-point scale, with 1 denoting "little 
need for additional information and training" and 5 denoting 
"great need for additional information and training." The mean, 
or average, score was computed for each issue. 

    In general, the team leaders believed that their teams had a 
substantial need for additional information and training (mean = 
3.0 or higher) for all of the issues listed with only one 
exception: impact of nonpolice personnel on negotiations (mean = 
2.91; sd [standard deviation] = 1.24). The top five information 
and training needs of the respondents were-in order of 
priority-assessing hostage-takers' emotional stability (mean = 
4.05; sd = .90), resolution strategies (mean = 4.04; sd = 1.02), 
negotiator communication skills and strategies (mean = 3.97; sd = 
1.03), suicide indicators (mean = 3.97; sd = .93), and when to 
employ tactical strategies (mean = 3.85; sd = 1.17). The 
remaining prioritized issues were rapport building (mean = 3.81; 
sd = 1.09), negotiation differences among various situations 
(mean = 3.81; sd = .97), impact of psychological characteristics 
of hostage takers (mean = 3.75; sd = 1.02), hostage-takers' views 
on negotiations (mean = 3.70; sd = 1.06), cultural impacts on 
negotiation (mean = 3.56; sd = 1.12), and impact of nonpolice 
personnel on negotiations (mean = 2.91; sd = 1.24). 

Need for National Clearinghouse 

    The overwhelming majority (92%) of the respondents cited a 
need for a national clearinghouse to collect, analyze, and dis-
seminate information regarding crisis negotiation. Further, 94% 
of the team leaders indicated a willingness to use such a 
clearinghouse, and 93% of the team leaders indicated a willing-
ness to assist the clearinghouse by providing both information 
and audio visual materials on their crisis negotiation experi-
ences. 

CONCLUSION 

    The crisis negotiation survey provides preliminary insights 
into selected demographic and functional characteristics of a 
sample of crisis/hostage negotiation teams within the United 
States. It represents the first attempt at collecting and dissem-
inating information on hostage negotiation team characteristics 
and crisis incidents. 

    The information obtained through the CNS can provide an 
initial benchmark by which to assess the needs and functions of 
individual crisis/hostage negotiation teams. Further, this 
information can be used to create effective training and 
information dissemination programs. Most important, however, the 
research can be used to identify and address the most critical 
needs of crisis teams throughout the country. 
 
